James Clary

Someone is shy

James hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
A stepped minimum wage
I don't remember that in the Bill of Rights. The stickiness in your statement comes from your use of the term "same work". As an employer, should I be allowed to pay someone more who is a more helpful, kind, supportive team mate than another? Pay should be based on a worker's performance, not just in actual output, but in their overall attitude and support of the company. Of course, most people with cheerful dispositions would never complain they aren't getting paid enough because they probably are. If not, they get another job. That is how a "free market" works.
Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
Harro-said, "The original question was about scientific bias and a role that philosophy may play in reducing the bias. My assertion is that this is nonsense." Your position assumes that science, by its very nature, is without bias, a declaration I would counter is much more absurd than the idea that philosophy can reduce bias. OF COURSE science is biased! Are you saying that the many historical examples of scientific wrong thinking that led to persecutions, executions, and exile of scientists all over the world whose ideas were thought to be rubbish at the time, but later shown to be correct, are no evidence of bias? Or, are you saying that modern science has overcome it's prejudices; that it is completely open to new ideas, even those whose reality would create a major paradigm shift? Either proposition is preposterous. Sheldrake's work meets all the criteria for "real science", yet, Tedx pulled his video. Philosophy is exactly the right tool for determining whether or not there is bias in science. The idea of "laws' did not flow from science, but from philosophy. Science itself would not exist had not a thinking brain or consciousness pondered the idea that we needed a certain structure and methodology to properly examine the world around us. To put it another way, what experiment would you propose to determine if there were bias? It cannot be determined through experimentation, but rather by thoughtful consideration of issues that involve politics, money, egos, and careers; not things that are easily measured in the laboratory. The reluctance of science to investigate claims having to do with the esoteric is, in itself, a blatant example of scientific bias. To say that the study of possible different levels of existence is tied to religious dogma, does not consider the nature of reality and possible explanations provided by quantum physics. If so, then you must dismiss the likes of Strassman and Penrose/Hammerhoff. Lol, but Freud was a true scientist!
Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your explanation and completely agree with your assessment. There are likely some very influential and powerful forces behind the obvious censorship of this man's ideas. I don't necessarily agree with everything he postulates either. Nor do I completely agree with Bruce Lipton's research and conclusions that belief can actually influence our genetic evolution, but I think his research is absolutely fascinating! I understand that Tedx has to have some standards by which they judge the merits of a presenter, but by walking lockstep with the same, old, tired skeptics and debunkers of ANYTHING that falls even slightly outside of their precious and narrowly defined "science", Tedx quite frankly, has completely lost the respect of a great many bright, interested, and skeptical people. AND, so we are clear, I too, believe the Tea Party has more than its share of knucklehead haters. I pisses me off quite frankly as it gives a bad name to many who really just want our government to relax restrictions on business and perhaps give free market principles more consideration when passing future legislation. As Amfortas stated above, I think this whole conversation is about spent. I've truly enjoyed the interaction with the majority of people here. I'm extremely interested in the nature, including such "woo" topics as psi, the afterlife, etc. and particularly curious about the role quantum mechanics might play in explaining them. I'm incredibly encouraged by the number of people here who seem to be open minded enough to consider Sheldrake's work. The evidence regarding many esoteric subjects is voluminous. Sadly, much of it has never been given the proper scientific investigation it deserves due to the very reasons that you and others have so eloquently argued. It boils down to what you have alluded to; money. Couple that with ego, reputation, and fear of ridicule, and it is easy to understand why there aren't more Rupert Sheldrakes out there. Regards!
Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
You used the phrase "creationist drivel". Are you asserting the idea that anyone who proposes the idea that intelligent design is responsible for the creation of the universe is promoting "drivel"? If so, then you should sharpen your pencil. The fact of the matter is that we currently have NO satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe. Even if one were to accept the Big Bang, its origins remain unknown. There is no less reason to suppose that the universe was created by a supernatural force than by some unknown, natural force. The term, supernatural, in my mind, only describes processes that we don't yet understand. It may turn out that our particular universe arose as a result of some super advanced technology wielded by a society that is billions of years more advanced than ours. This theory which is not supported by any "evidence", is still as valid as any other explanation. To me it is obvious that many in mainstream science have become shackled by outdated modes of thinking that deny any evidence if it pertains to a certain set of topics that it deems "woo woo". These subjects include but are not limited to; psi phenomena or ESP of any sort, existence of consciousness in any form outside of the skull including an afterlife or "spirit", God or ID, UFOs as craft for inter dimensional or extraterrestrial beings, and anomalous archeology. Many of these perplexing ideas could easily be proven or disproved if our best scientists were to actually research and study them, yet they lack the will, courage, or resources, to do so. One particular phenomena I have personally studied, EVP, has been written off as CB radio interference or audio pareidolia in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The paradigm IS shifting, thankfully, and no amount of derision, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks will stop the number of Sheldrake-like researchers from growing and flourishing. I know. Let the insults begin. (-:
Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
A stepped minimum wage
The best way to raise the minimum wage is to completely do away with it. Allow the market to determine what it can afford to pay people and still make a profit. The most effective managers of American business are those that are in it. Most of the lawyers and intellectuals that fill the halls of Congress and live on Pennsylvania avenue have no clue what it is like to own and operate a small business. Neither do a majority of the population; most have never done so. "Working" in a small business and "owning" one are completely different and sadly most "employees" have no clue in regards to the copious requirements, in both time and capitol, to conceptualize, open, and operate a business. The "everyone gets a trophy" generation that represents a great number of our young workers right feel that a certain standard of living or wage is due them simply because they are able to draw a breath when they awake each morning. The idea of outworking your peers to advance is seldom evident anymore. Our economy continues to show anemic growth due to over-reaching government interference, not because government has not done "enough". Unfortunately, we'll never really know the heights of productivity and innovation the American economy could reach were it allowed to flourish under a model suggested by the likes of Thomas Sowell or Milton Freidman. The claws of tyranny and regulation are already sunk way too deep into the tissue of American business. As one who owned and operated a successful business from 1989 until 2007 and now works for someone else, I can't imagine opening another business in the current political/economic climate. I'm not alone. More and more people who once owned small businesses have gotten out and will not jump back in unless political winds were to bring us a Congress and Administration that pledged to repeal many of the cumbersome regulations that hamper growth, do away with the minimum wage, and replace our current tax system in favor of a flat tax.
Noface
James Clary
Posted about 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Dan, when you paint a group that espouses principles different than your own as "loudmouths spewing venom", I don't think you're helping your case. The whole point of this discussion is that Tedx is being close minded and intolerant of positions that fall outside of their narrow paradigm. NO ONE has a monopoly on the truth. Although I wouldn't call myself a "Tea Partier", I do believe in free market principles espoused by the likes of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Neither, in my opinion spews venom, yet their views represent what many in the Tea Party espouse. You can certainly disagree with those views, but stereotyping a political movement as being hate filled is a little much. I do not and will not engage in a political discussion here; I do that on enough other sites, but my point is, we should leave politics out of this discussion unless discussing political considerations which are directly tied to the Tedx/Sheldrake issue. There's enough politics involved with the rigid, materialist, viewpoints promulgated by mainstream science and academia to keep us busy without engaging in the typical right vs left discussions that define so many debates concerning the direction our country should be taking. I completely respect your views and you have contributed much to this debate. I just think we should leave the other stuff out of it.
Noface
James Clary
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
I don't think he's ignorant at all and I don't blame him for believing as he does. The preponderance of testable and repeatable experimentation back up his assertions. There IS good evidence to the contrary however including but not limited to Sheldrake's work and that of Dean Radin. It doesn't matter the amount or quality of work presented. It will NEVER be enough to satisfy an ardent materialist. I know. I once held such beliefs. It was through dramatic, personal experience that I "came to believe" as it were. Similar life altering experiences have been noted here and for those that have had them, no amount of scientific "evidence" is going to persuade me to believe differently. As rigid and unyielding as that position may seem, it really, in my mind at least, just means that Jimmy and I just represent different sides of the same coin. He will maintain, predictably, that his position is superior because he has "science" on his side. And I respond that I have history, public opinion, and the knowledge that my life experiences were real on mine. Maybe someday he and I will have that beer and ill share what's happened in my life that has led me to the absolute certainty that intelligence can and does exist outside the narrow confines of our skull.
Noface
James Clary
Posted over 2 years ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Nietzsche said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies” Throughout the ages there have been periods of dramatic scientific discovery and rapid advancements of technologies. In many of these instances, in order for the changes to take place, a complete paradigm shift was necessary to explain the new ideas. The keepers of the “truth” in any such transformational period used derision, slander, misdirection, and sometimes outright falsehoods to deride those thinkers emulating the new way of thinking. Many times the “new thinker’s” discoveries were not completely accepted or proven to be true until many years later, often after the “new thinker” was deceased. By grouping Sheldrake in this category I will likely be accused of fallacy by association however, according to at least one “scientific” website*, there are several criteria that will flush out the charlatans; • Consider the reliability of those making the claim. Could they be biased or have an agenda? • If possible, ask to see the supporting evidence for their conclusions. Is the claim based on only one or two studies? Or none at all? • Do an online check of any studies that are cited. Have they been through a peer-review process? Were they published in legitimate scientific journals? • Check online to find out whether there are systematic reviews of their claims or similar claims. I postulate that Sheldrake’s work meets all of the criteria listed, therefore, my case that he is a victim of the so called Galileo Gambit is shown to be true. Get your towel out of the closet, Jimmy. *http://scienceornot.net/2012/02/21/persecuted-prophets-and-maligned-mavericks-the-galileo-gambit/